Back on the first of October I wrote:
The suit also alleges that the attorney who had served as Ganley’s general counsel for twenty-five years, Russell Harris, “just filed a law suit against Ganley on September 17, 2010 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV 2010 736109; apparently related to the attempted suborning of perjury by Ganley.” However, that suit was allowed to be filed “under seal” according to the Cuyahoga County Clerk’s Office. Thus preventing a copy of the Complaint to be public record. I would expect that either the Cleveland Plain Dealer or the Akron Beacon Journal, or some other third-party, would file a Motion to Intervene and demand that the Court unseal the Complaint as it might have allegations that the voters in the 13th Congressional District have a right to know before the election.
Well, apparently Cleveland Scene (HT: Ohio Daily Blog) looked into it and found information that implies that the accuser in the sexual harassment complaint was correct that Ganley’s long-time lawyer may have left due to Ganley potentially perjuring himself in an arbitration with Chrysler:
Russell Harris served as the attorney for Ganley’s network of car dealerships from 1982 until Ganley fired him in June. Harris has now filed suit in Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court, claiming, among other things, that his termination was “intentional, willful, reckless, and malicious,” according to the complaint. Harris had been representing Ganley in arbitration against Chrysler earlier this year. An arbitrator suspended the hearing, apparently over a question as to whether Ganley’s testimony was truthful. That led to a run-in between Harris and Ganley.
[W]hen asked directly if the dispute involved possible perjury by Ganley, Harris’ attorney, Andrew Kabat, responded in perfect lawyerese: “I can’t confirm or deny that because of the material nature of the testimony. It’s interesting you would say that. You seem like an intelligent person.”
The story also notes that Harris’ Motion to Unseal the complaint could potentially be decided right before the election. Ganley could simply agree to unseal the complaint, however, in fairness, he’s claiming it needs to be sealed because the complaint contains matters that are covered by attorney-client privilege.
In the sexual harassment complaint, the alleged victim asserted that Ganley has gone through a number of lawyers in trying to handle his case, allegedly, because they’ve been forced to remove themselves because they became aware he intended to commit perjury in that case.
The Scene article does not confirm that allegation, but nonetheless, it’s not good to have it come out before an election that your lawyer is suing you because you fired him because he wouldn’t go along with your plan to commit perjury.
It’s been two weeks since Ganley’s lawyer said he would cooperate with a criminal investigation by the Cleveland Police Department, but we don’t know if Mr. Ganley has, in fact, cooperated or what the status is of that criminal case.